On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 09:40 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 13:17 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:> > Concern was raised on the lkml mailing list, about adding i_integrity> > to the inode structure. This patch adds a comment clarifying that> > i_integrity is only included in the inode if INTEGRITY is configured.> > Mimi, it is nice that you made this a config option. That definitely> helps the embedded folks and those compiling their own kernels. But, it> doesn't really help those who run distros.> > The distributions basically ship one kernel for everybody, and it has to> have CONFIG_KITCHEN_SINK=y in order to support everyone's individual> users. Although you provided a config option, in practice, this always> bloats distro kernels which are the vast majority of users.

Thank you for giving a more fuller explanation as to why extending theinode is such an issue.

> Is this even useful for filesystems like proc or sysfs? Should we bloat> those inodes for a feature which might not possibly apply there?